I defer to your jargon, but point out that you aren't, in fact, contradicting my point. So I'll flip the technique around: if Amazon were to read the upthread comment and refuse to honor the refund request, do you genuinely believe a court would compel them to? That's just silly, and you know it. If you order something you know is junk, that's on you, not Amazon.
I’m guessing you’re referring to a jurisdiction within the US?
In the UK the law is clear and explicit: it’s on the retailer (and not the manufacturer or wholesaler) to make sure the goods are “Fit for purpose”, “As described”, and of “Satisfactory quality”.
There’s no wiggle room for “consumer guessed the goods might not be as described”.
> if Amazon were to read the upthread comment and refuse to honor the refund request, do you genuinely believe a court would compel them to?
Probably in most US jurisdictions; to my knowledge generally Amazon has failed in court where they have tried to escape obligations of sellers by pretending not to be retailer but a marketplace facilitator, and generally sellers are going to be obligated to refund if they accept money and don’t deliver the product represented.
Under the UCC, for instance, the buyer would not only be entitled to refund, would also be entitled to make a good faith purchase of substitute goods matching what the seller represented, and also recover the difference between the purchase price of the substitute goods and the purchase price of the original goods (the latter already covered by the refund) or, even if they don’t “cover” with a substitute, recover the amount by which fair market price of a substitute at the time the buyer learned the goods were not as described exceeds the refund. (See, UCC Sections 2-711 through 2-713.) [0]
> If you order something you know is junk
Suspecting and actual knowledge are…different things.
You are making the statement that this is “fraud” and the commenter above has asked for legal references. The burden of proof is on you, because at this point you’re just making stuff up.
But you can’t provide references. You haven’t even explained why you think this fits into the legal definition of fraud (hint: it doesn’t).
